The respondent, Johnston, was convicted on an indictment charging in separate counts a failure to pay over the tax upon admission fees received at certain boxing matches and a failure to make return to the collector of internal revenue of the money so received, contrary to the Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, 800, 802, 1308(b), 40 Stat. 1057, 1120, 1143 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 6309 5/8 a, 6309 5/8 c, 6371 1/2 h). He also was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. 10214) of embezzling the amounts collected as taxes on the same occasions. Act of March 4, 1909, c. 321, 47, 35 Stat. 1097. The judgment was reversed and the District Court was directed to dismiss the indictment by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 290 F. 120. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court as the decision was said to be of grave importance to the administration of the revenue laws.
263
U.S. 692
, 44 S. Ct. 6.

So far as the charge of embezzlement goes we think that the Court below and the intimation of the Treasury Department that it followed were clearly right. However it may have been under other statutes (United States v. Thomas, 15 Wall. 337), it seems to us that under this law the person required to pay over the tax is a
[268 U.S. 220, 227]
debtor and not a bailee. The money paid for the tax is not identified at the outset but is paid with the price of the ticket that belongs to the owner of the show. We see no ground for requiring the ticket office of a theatre to create a separate fund by laying aside the amount of the tax on each ticket and to keep it apart, either in a strong box or as a separate deposit in a bank. Reports are required only once a month, sections 802, 502 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 5309 5/8 c, 6309 1/3 c), which does not look as if the Government were dealing with these people otherwise than with others answerable for a tax. Further argument seems unnecessary upon this point.

On the other counts we are of opinion that the Court below was wrong. We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence and discuss specific facts. But the Court seems to have regarded the formal relations of Johnston to the Central Manhattan Boxing Club, Inc., made necessary by the laws of New York, as conclusive upon his relations to the United States. The laws of New York permitted a license only to a corporation, and so Johnston may have assumed the technical position of agent and manager for the Club. But if as a matter of fact all this was machinery to enable Johnston to give exhibitions, collect the entrance fees and make himself liable for the tax, it properly might be alleged that he collected the fees and if he wilfully failed to pay that he refused and failed to pay the tax. As the jury found Johnston guilty, although with an earnest recommendation of mercy, we are of opinion that the sentence and judgment of the District Court, which was much less than it might have been under section 1308(b), must be affirmed.